Sabarimala case: seers’ body opposes court role in religious matters
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has moved the Supreme Court seeking intervention in the Sabarimala review case, arguing that courts should not decide essential religious practices. It said faith-based traditions must be protected unless they violate public order, morality or health
New Delhi: Courts should not determine essential religious practices as they are a matter of faith held to be sacred by the followers of a religion, the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has told the Supreme Court while seeking to intervene in the upcoming Sabarimala review proceedings.
A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant is set to commence the final hearing on April 7 on petitions relating to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had, by a 4:1 majority verdict, lifted a ban that prevented females between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, in its plea filed through lawyer Atulesh Kumar, has sought the court’s nod to intervene in the Sabarimala review proceedings.
The organisation, which describes itself as an umbrella body representing 127 sects of the Sanatan Dharma, including approximately 18.5 lakh priests and 12 lakh seers, has said courts are not equipped to act as “experts” in religious matters.
The plea says the judiciary should only intervene in religious practices if these directly violate public order or on the grounds of morality and health.
It says the fundamental right to equality (guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution) should not be used to override the right to freely profess and practise religion (Article 25).
“Religion is a matter of faith and religious beliefs are held to be sacred by those who share the same faith. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external manifestations thereof … the phrase ‘equally entitled to’, as it occurs in Article 25(1), must mean that each devotee is equally entitled to profess, practise and propagate his religion, as per the tenets of that religion,” the plea has said.
“The courts should not determine the essential religious practices because the court is not an expert in religious matters/practice. The courts should step in only when such religious practice violates public order, morality or health,” it has added.
Justifying the restrictions at the Sabarimala temple, the plea says certain shrines follow purity rituals and specific traditions.
“This is based on the belief that the deity is a Naishtika Brahmachari (celibate) and worshippers must observe 41 days of strict purification, which the tradition believes is difficult for women during this phase,” it says.
This religious practice should be protected under Article 25 and it cannot be said to be an absolute restriction on women as it prohibits a particular age group and, consequently, it is not violative of Article 14, the plea has contended.
It has highlighted that there are more than 1,000 other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa where no such age restrictions exist, proving that the tradition at Sabarimala is site-specific and rooted in the “essential practice” of that particular shrine.
